Why? Is this opinion rooted in the American hatred/demonization of unions? I come from a scandinavian country and it would be pretty normal for a union spokesman to comment on something like this.
What would be his "political" point here?
What would be his "political" point here?
It could very well be the truth that the cost-cutting culture is to blame. But it's always worth noting incentives of parties in cases like this.
Serious questions, I'm not quite understanding that corporate culture.
That being the case, the motivation to ensure that the former are not blamed for the 737-Max issue and to call into question the quality of work of the latter is probably clear.
[0] - http://www.speea.org/Join_Our_Union!/FAQ.html ("Where do SPEEA members work?")
But, as far as I can tell this isn't a fight, but it's more like marketing to the public in a way that might be beneficial for future negotiations.
I guess a union's purpose is to protect and benefit it's members.
A example scenario I could imagine (complete fiction) might be Boeing tries to look good to shareholders by laying off several teams, blaming engineers and management of them for the safety issues. This could benefit the company financially.
By preemptively making sure the public is aware that corporate culture is to blame it'd likely make a move like that far harder to enact.
Making it clear that this is the fault of the corporation, not the individuals, keeps the union members safe in this case.
This scenario is likely unrealistic. But maybe someone has a better explanation/historical example?
I don't know how it is in other places, but in the U.S. every unionized employee has to pay a fee to the union for the benefits it provides them. These benefits may include protection from corporate leaders if they try to fire you (see also: police officers, tenured teachers).
> Does it benefit financially from it?
Not directly, but there are a lot of employees who would be upset at the union if they paid their dues and still got fired anyways. Other employees would see this and be more hesitant at supporting the union in the future.
Alternatively, if there's a possibility that a lot of employees (>100) can be fired as a result of the fallout from this mess, that's >100 union fees that can no longer be collected.
> Do their members somehow benefit from it?
See protection described above. Note that, for some reason, some American unions believe in protecting their employees even if they deserve to be fired. I think this is where the politicization claims come in. By supporting this union leader you are supporting no accountability for engineers or managers who maybe should be fired. Or so the argument goes, I don't really agree with that line of thinking but it's understandable why people would see it this way, especially given the line between police unions and police brutality.
> Are you saying that Boeing wants to blame their Engineers and this is now a fight between Boeing and it's employees?
Honestly? Kind of. I mean, I'm not Boeing, but they certainly seem to be trying to paint this situation as a technical issue rather than a political/financial one. They sold a separate upgrade to the plane that provided two sensors instead of one, which could have fixed the MCAS problems. Why didn't the original plane just come with two sensors? Etc...
I'm actually interested in your perspective now. How are unions seen in your culture? Are these problems of unions protecting bad employees present in your country, or is it an American thing?
In the end, it's probably at least partially true and very biased at the same time. I think the biggest arguments about unions are if they provide value, and if you are required to be part of a union in order to work in a given position/company. There've also been weird reverse-unions where the union is actually on the employer network's side. I've seen this happen locally with regards to nursing workers, the collective is member operated under the various hospitals and providers for fixed, down-ward driven rates.
They are likely going to speak negatively of even the greatest off-shoring/out-sourcing or other labor cost-savings effort.
More or less. Unions are viewed as anti-corporate (rather than an balancing factor), anti-job, and anti-right wing by the Republican party. Even someone who believes in unions in the US would see unions as political.
Some of this comes from machine poltics of the early 1900s, but that being a real factor in American democracy has passed from living memory for the most part. It is much more rooted in the corporate supremacy of the 1980s with strikebreaking and what not.